I was searching through our “Caught Spam” file last night, trying to find and rescue comments held by our capricious spam filter. Amongst the ads for viagra and tramadol and sex sites, I did find a few which should have been posted. And others I might have saved were it not for their tone.
One such comment accused us of licking the boots of Sarah Palin because we failed to criticize her when she indicated support of a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage. Yes, I’m concerned that, in an interview with Christian Broadcasting Network Correspondent David Brody, Palin said:
I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage.
As I express my concerns, I’ll ask our critics to cite gay organizations who condemned Joe Biden for signaling his opposition to gay marriage in the vice-presidential debate. He then articulated the exact same position as did his Republican rival, though not nearly as clearly as did she. Did our critics blog how disappointed they were with their party’s nominee? Did we accuse them of licking his boots for failing to do so?
Much as I’m concerned about Palin’s support for a federal constitutional amendment, I’m not as troubled by it as I was with President Bush’s support in 2004 for a similar proposal. Then, he initiated the public statement. She only responded when asked. She’s not using it as a wedge issue as, some said, Bush did in 2004.
Not just that. We know from previous congressional consideration on the matter that neither house could muster the necessary two-thirds majority to send the proposed amendment to the states. It doesn’t stand a chance of passage–as appeared possible four years ago. Neither the president nor vice-president has any say in amending the constitution. (Though Joe Biden’s constitutional ignorance* notwithstanding, the vice president could preside over the Senate should it again debate the amendment.)
All that said, I disagree with Palin’s support of a constitutional amendment defining marriage because, as I’ve said before, the issue doesn’t belong there.
But, I wonder at our critics readiness to slight us for not faulting a candidate we support when she takes a stand with which we disagree. Do they so readily condemn their candidate every time he makes an unfortunate or untoward remark or espouses a policy they oppose?
*In the vice presidential debate, he said:
And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there’s a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.
Sorry, Joe, Article I (which defines the legislative not executive branch as you said in the debate), Section 3 includes this “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.” In other words, he presides over the Senate and not just when there’s a tie vote.
UPDATE:Â Glenn links a post which gets at our critics attacking us for not blogging about certain things: “anytime a reader purports to attack you for not blogging about X, his real beef is that you are blogging about Y, and the reader would really like you to shut up about Y.“Â Sounds about right.
Dan, some excellent points. But what you’re expressing is typical hypocrisy that’s exhibited on both sides. People naturally tend to emphasize the gaffes, inaccuracies, etc., of their opponent, while downplaying their sides’. We’ve seen plenty of that on both sides for the current campaign.
As for the gay issue, whether or not there is 2/3 of either house to muster a passing vote on FMA is beside the point. It’s disappointing to hear that Palin does support such an amendment. It bolsters the claims by those regarding her veto of denying benefits. Democrats are far from perfect on gay rights, but Palin is really a step backwards IMO. If you like her for other reasons, then that’s fine.
As for the VP blather, I agree a big deal was made with Palin’s response. The Constitution says what it says regarding the VP role, i.e., very little. I’m curious though about statistics that would show the percentage of the time Cheney, Gore, Quayle, Bush I, Mondale, Rockefeller, Ford, Agnew, etc., has actually presided over the Senate when the Senate was in session.
Some good points, Pat, esp. about how much time the VP spends presiding over the Senate. Still, the point of my footnote was that Biden didn’t realize that was how the Constitution defines the job to which he aspires.
Biden’s quote could be changed by punctuation to be interpreted differently dependent on your political slant.
And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there’s a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.
VS
And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and, as vice president, to preside over the Senate. Only in a time when in fact there’s a tie, vote. The Constitution is explicit.
Hi. I’m one who has questioned what seems your unfettered support of Palin. What disturbs me, as I pointed out, is that unlike John McCain, Palin is FOR the FMA.
In terms of Obama and Biden, while neither is for marriage, both have, unlike McCain & Palin, taken a stand against Prop 8. Right?
More importantly, Obama and Biden support civil unions with FULL legal equality to marriage. Neither Palin nor McCain supports any kind of state-recognized domestic partnership for gays.
So, yes, I do question how you can be so supportive of Palin! I can no more understand her stance than I could understand if Jewish or Chinese Americans supported a candidate who thought enshrining into a constitution that they would be second class citizens.
That is a HUGE difference between McCain and Palin.
As for criticizing Obama and Biden for not supporting marriage in general, I think they suck for it. But, I believe that neither would stand in the way of a U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing for gay marriage.
The irony here is that Obama and Biden’s stance on civil unions actually pays deference to religious concerns but gay conservatives give them no credit for that. FULL marriage equality? Hello!
I agree with this post. I’m disappointed that Palin came out in favor of an FMA / MPA. However, I’m convinced of several mitigating points:
– She’s not coming from a place of hate. Evidence: the pro-gay or gay-respecting things she has done as Alaska governor.
– It’s not a front-burner issue for her.
– Even if it were, an FMA/MPA has no real chance of passing the American constitutional amendment process.
– Democrats are nothing to write home about. I mean, Democrat candidates themselves keep telling us how they oppose gay marriage. And we should believe them because of Clinton’s record (DADT and DOMA).
Well said, ILC. Seems a nice bullet-point summary of my post.
Dan, perhaps Biden does not know what the Constitution says the role of Vice President is, or he does, but misinterpreted it. And if Biden did misinterpret it, then the role has been misinterpreted for as long as I can remember. All I remember is that for the past few administrations, when there has been an important close vote in the Senate, the administrations act as if the VP needs directions on how to get to the Capitol Building so he could vote, if in fact, the vote was a tie.
So you’re right that Biden’s answer regarding the role as defined in the Constitution is wrong, and he deserves criticism. But does Palin really expect to preside over the Senate if she does become Vice President. If so, then I’m fine with her answer. But I doubt either she or Biden would be presiding over the Senate, and will probably need directions for the one or two times they may actually need to go to the Capitol Building and “preside” over the Senate.
ILC, some good points, but some disagreement on your bullet points. I don’t believe that Palin is coming from a place of hate, however, she seemed to make it clear why she vetoed the benefits bill, and it wasn’t coming from a gay friendly place either.
And whether or not the FMA has any chance of passing, her support for it indicates that she will try to be much more of a hindrance to gay rights than Democrats, who you have rightly stated are nothing to write home about.
Dan et al: As one of those who criticized y’all for not speaking out against this, let me say I appreciate that you eventually did so. Props to you. And, you’re right, neither she or the McCain campaign has openly used it as a wedge issue. I think there are a few too many charges of racism (whether fair or not) to risk opening an entirely separate can of worms and charges of culture warfare. Anyway… Kudos for the honesty.
With all due respect, ILC, what gay-respecting things did Palin do in Alaska? On the one hand, reports show that she allowed DP benefits for public sector employees to go through. That she did grudgingly, as she was very vocal about opposing DP benefits on the grounds that such benefits should be reserved for traditional married couples.
On the other hand, didn’t she spend millions on a glorified poll to allow opposition to DP benefits the chance to voice its opinion?
Palin’s opposition isn’t from a place of hate. It seems to come from a place of ignorance, which is far more dangerous.
If there’s a question about each party’s commitment to issues that impact the LGBT community, the GOP platform still seems to need about a two-paragraph revision.